4 ms·

> Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations a

> Slightly concerning to see so much skepticism I think its more concerning that skepticism is a bad word in climate science. The facts are the observations about our climate, I think the conclusion it's changing and humans are causing it is pretty well supported by that. Past there, we're basing policy decisions on modeling (so 1 level removed from observation) and then predicting the effects of those changes on the environment (2 levels removed from observation). So policy decisions based on projected effects in modeled changes to those parameters are pretty far removed from the actual "97% of scientists agree with this conclusion" part of the field. I live in an affluent area with a good job in a pretty future proof field - it's really easy for me to say "well, who cares if we make the world a better place for no reason". These policy decisions affect a lot of people in negative ways though - to pretend they don't have a valid reason to oppose those changes, and that those policies are based on bullet proof science (especially with the past of climate modeling) is just as anti-science to me as the people who deny the climate is changing. It indicates that a person doesn't understand confidence levels or how errors propagate through layers (especially in an non-linear system) or the difference between an observation, a forecast model and a projection.

exclusiv 10y ago
Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.

exclusiv 10y ago

Good points. Also - if you believe that we're screwed unless we take action now - we would need to take serious steps worldwide. Which means laying policies on countries that are still developing, where they have serious issues with clean water and people are starving. Where they haven't yet benefitted from investments in serious infrastructure and can't execute those things with renewables. It's much easier to propose these policies from a developed country where we don't have those concerns and already reaped the benefit from little to no environmental rules.